The ecology and behavior of feral dogs: A case study from central Italy

The influence of relationships on neophobia and exploration in wolves and dogs

“…Actually, selection for dogs' problem-solving abilities may have relaxed due to the buffering effect of humans who take care of them (‘information processing hypothesis’; Frank, 1980 ); our present results indicate that this may lead to less caution and, generally, to less interest in their environment than wolves. Moreover, since domestication began, even free-ranging dogs consume food of human origin either actively provided to the dogs or in the form of rubbish dumps ( Boitani et al., 1995; Bonanni, Natoli, Cafazzo, & Valsecchi, 2011; Cafazzo et al., 2010 ). Thus, the combination of competition over food with other pack members and reduced neophobia might have selected them to be less careful in contacting novel objects and thus be individually quicker than wolves to exploit novel food sources.…”

“…It is possible that this effect is due to an exposure-type social buffering where the opportunity to interact with a conspecific during exposure to a novel environment attenuated subjects' stress responses ( Kiyokawa, Kodama, Takeuchi & Mori, 2013 ). The strong cooperative tendencies in wolves and, still, in free-ranging dogs ( Boitani et al., 1995; Bonanni et al., 2010; Mech & Boitani, 2003 ), for whom risk sharing in an uncertain situation might be a form of cooperation, could facilitate the exploration of novel objects. This was also supported by the facts that, first, co-exploration occurred for longer in wolves than in dogs in the pair condition and, second, wolves investigated for longer the smaller the rank distance, while dogs showed no such difference.…”

“…Feral dogs form a relatively steep, sex–age graded dominance hierarchy ( Cafazzo et al., 2010 ). Particularly during feeding on dumps or on carcasses, aggression tends to be high ( Boitani, Francisci, Ciucci, & Andreoli, 1995; Macdonald & Carr, 1995 ), which may make it less costly for them to explore a new source of food alone rather than in a group. Moreover, while free-ranging dogs, similar to wolves, defend their territories together ( Boitani et al., 1995; Macdonald & Carr, 1995 ), they usually do not raise pups cooperatively ( Boitani et al., 1995; Daniels & Bekoff, 1989 ; but see Pal, 2005 ), nor is it clear how closely they cooperate during hunting ( Boitani et al., 1995; Macdonald & Carr, 1995 ).…”

“…For reasons discussed above, we predicted that wolves would be overall more neophobic than dogs towards human-related objects ( Clutton-Brock, 1995; Fritts et al., 2003; Hare & Tomasello, 2005; Thorne, 1995 ), approaching the objects slower than dogs, but possibly exploring novel objects more thoroughly than dogs as novelty may lead to potential benefits or costs that are greater for wolves than for dogs. Moreover, owing to the inherently higher cooperativeness of wolves towards conspecifics ( Boitani et al., 1995; Kaczensky et al., 2005; Mech & Boitani, 2003, 2004; Pal, 2005; Range & Virányi, 2015 ), we expected a greater facilitating influence of the presence of conspecifics on the exploratory and neophobic behaviour of wolves than dogs, that is, wolves would approach the novel objects faster and explore the objects for longer when tested with a pack member or the entire pack. We also expected that when tested alone this effect would be larger in wolves than dogs; that is, there would be no or little influence of the presence of a pack member in dogs.…”

Peer Review #3 of "Domestic carnivore interactions with wildlife in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile: husbandry and perceptions of impact from a community perspective (v0.2)"

“…3The evidence of a feral population of dogs on Navarino Island (where native predators are absent) urgently needs biological methods of confirmation such as GPS monitoring (Young et al, 2011) and an assessment of its impacts. Feral dogs are still poorly investigated (Boitani et al, 2017), and management implications for feral dogs are challenging (i.e., they may include the removal of dogs) due to their avoidance of human contact (Boitani & Ciucci, 1995) and restriction to natural habitats. (4) Increasing dog and cat confinement is beneficial to prevent not only pet-wildlife interactions, but also many socio-economic problems.…”